A Glimpse of Public Reason: Lincoln and Rawls

It is often noted that the late American political philosopher John Rawls had a great admiration for President Abraham Lincoln. While people often express admiration for Lincoln, there are many theoretical similarities between the thought and actions of Lincoln and the grand political philosophy of Rawls. For the purposes of this essay I would like to look at one particular aspect of Rawls’ work in which he can see parallels between his own theory and the thought of Lincoln. The aspect of Rawls’ work of which I speak is the idea of public reason. Below I will summarize the idea of public reason and then look at how public reason plays a role in Lincoln’s thought with particular focus on his second inaugural address.

The idea of public reason is rooted in Rawls’ later work about political liberalism, which for Rawls focuses on the hope that no matter what our religious or philosophical disposition we can all agree on a conception of justice that can form the basis of democratic legitimacy. Public reason within political liberalism places parameters upon the reasons that public officials can use in forming law and policy. Primarily, public official must appeals to publicly and commonly held ideas and concepts. Examples of such concepts would be the principles of liberty and equality found in the Declaration of Independence or the tenant of the Preamble of the Constitution (i.e. general welfare or common defense). Appeals to such concepts would be reasonable to all even if there is disagreement about the details or content of certain principles.

On the other hand, public reason limits or rejects arguments rooted solely in religious or philosophical doctrines that cannot be deemed reasonable in a public arena. One cannot support a policy position solely on the assertion that “the Bible says so.” Not only are such arguments tenuous because few policies can clearly be shown to be found in the Bible one way or the other, but such claims are meaningless and unconvincing to those the view the Bible differently or who find no meaning in it at all. According to Rawls, a policy lacks legitimacy if it is rooted in religious doctrine that not all could reasonably accept.

However, Rawls does not ban religion from the public discourse. He makes it very clear that political liberalism has nothing to say about the truthfulness of any religion (though if a religion denies liberty and equality to the point of demanding theocratic rule it is dismissed as unreasonable). Religion can be brought into public discourse following Rawls “proviso,” which allows for one to cite or refer to religion as long as policy is ultimately formed on the basis of public concepts. My commitment to the well-being of the poor can be rooted in a religious belief about the need to provide care with the needy. I can say as much in a public or political forum. Yet, I cannot expect others to accept or support programs for the poor solely based on my belief. I ultimately need to base my argument in the principle of equality or in the need to provide for the general welfare.

Abraham Lincoln is historically the master of public reason. Early is his career he refuses to make his own religion, and the religion of others, a public political matter. For Lincoln it was not about one’s ability to deliver a religious oration or their church attendance but instead ones commitment to sound political principles. In his early arguments about slavery, Lincoln makes his argument about slavery using the Declaration of Independence. It is not that slavery is evil (though he seemed to think so) or that is was immoral (though he said it was), but instead it violated a commonly held political principle. Slavery denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery systematically maintained that blacks were less than equal. The religious or moral standing of slavery, while obvious to most today, was in dispute in Lincoln’s day. Religion was used to condemn and justify slavery. It was also used to exalt and enslave black men and women. No resolution could be found on religious grounds. While there was disagreement about whether the Declaration applied to slaves, it could not denied that if it did that the practice and institution of slavery violated the principles of the Declaration. His argument clearly scared the South.

Lincoln, as Arthur Schlesinger points out, did use much religious language in his speeches. It seems that his religious references increased as the war draged on. However, we can see from his use of religion in his Second Inaugural Address (delivered March 4, 1865) that he uses and shows an appreciation of public reason.

Speaking of the two sides, he calls them parties, involved in the conflict, Lincoln notes that both “read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.” In acknowledging this, Lincoln is pointing to the need for public reason: We all have conflicting beliefs about the nature of religion and cannot expect others to view religion in the same way. Lincoln finds it “strange” that “any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.” He finds it hard to see how the forces of slavery could find divine help in the perpetuation of slavery, but he stops short of condemning their faith. This is consistent with Rawls’ admonition that political liberalism has nothing to say about the truth of religious conviction.

Given that “the prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully,” it is evident that other grounds are needed for understanding this conflict. Yet, Lincoln does not shy away from invoking faith. He continues by saying that “if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `’the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”’ It is particularly important that the fate of which Lincoln is speaking of is the fate of the United States of American, both North and South. He is not trying to exalt his side over the other. In essence, he is arguing that both North and South share the same fate.

While Lincoln draws on religion in a sincere and philosophical way, he closes this inaugural speech with a call for the public idea of social unity. He does this when he gave the charge to “to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” More importantly, he calls strongly for social unity when he asks the citizenry to “strive on to finish the work we are in; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” The desire for a just and peaceful republic is a theme throughout Lincoln’s life. Likewise, the desire for a just stability is the key to understanding the range of John Rawls’ work in political philosophy, including his work on public reason.

In looking at Rawls’ idea of public reason and the presence of public reason in the thought of Lincoln, I hope that I have shown one way in which Rawls’ admiration of Lincoln is found in his analytical and cumbersome political philosophy. There are many other areas of intersection between Rawls and Lincoln and surely more that could be said about public reason. For the purposes of this post, I will leave those for another day. They thing which personally strikes me with both of these men is their humility. An example of this humility is Lincoln’s desire to move forward with “malice toward none” and “charity for all.” This spirit of forgiveness is a grand example of humility.

Comments

Chris, nice article. I’m a bit leery of the “institutional” leanings of Rawls (I have Habermas’s critique in mind here), and I think an interesting question to pursue would be to think about how perhaps Rawls and Lincoln part ways a bit on this point. I don’t know Rawls well enough to say anything very useful, but I wonder if Lincoln might not be read as invoking non-institutional discourse in a way that moves away from Rawls toward something more like Habermas’s discourse ethics where primacy of place is given to “participants” rather than “observers” (if I’m being to cryptic, see here for a summary of Habermas’s critique of Rawls).

I’m also more sympathetic to MacIntyre’s notion of a tradition-bound conception of public reason, contra Rawls’s (and esp. Kant’s) more universal conception of public reason—for what it’s worth….

I am familiar and somewhat sympathetic with Habermas’s critique. However, I think that Rawls is making an argument about official institutions for a reason. That tends to be the focus of his work. Habermas is a bit more “social” in his approach to this topic and Rawls is more “political.” That the Supreme Court is Rawls’s primary example of public reason is a bit concerning given that it is a relatively un-democratic body. But I think this is largely because the Supreme Court emphasizes argument and reasoning in ways that the other branches and the media do not. This also might a statement about the rather poor level of political discourse in American politics.

Clearly, Habermas is arguing for a more robust and deliberative democratic society. I think Rawls is more arguing for liberal constitutional regimes to live up to their principles. I still seem to think that the Constitutional (institutional?) nature of Lincoln’s thought is more like that of Rawls. But I also do not think that the approaches of Habermas and Rawls are as far apart as they might seem. Seyla Benhabib argues that even Habermas is too abstract in his thoughts about deliberative democracy and not adequately committed to actual deliberation.

Clearly, Habermas is arguing for a more robust and deliberative democratic society. I think Rawls is more arguing for liberal constitutional regimes to live up to their principles. I still seem to think that the Constitutional (institutional?) nature of Lincoln’s thought is more like that of Rawls. But I also do not think that the approaches of Habermas and Rawls are as far apart as they might seem. Seyla Benhabib argues that even Habermas is to abstract in his thoughts about deliberative democracy and not adequately committed to actual deliberation.

Thanks for stopping by. I have written something more in-depth on Rawls and public reason that I will post sometime.

Support Approaching justice

Blog

The Approaching Justice liveblog for the first official Women’s Session of General Conference begins here with the session at 6:00 pm MDT. All women age 8 and older are invited to watch the session, although I won’t say anything if you participate without meeting the requirements. First things first: A female voice over replaces the […]

I wanted to take some time to offer some brief, general background about myself. Call it ethos or just a little context for many of my Approaching Justice posts. If you know me at all (or have read any of my recent posts), what I am about to say will shock you: I used to listen to and love Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others like them.

The morning paper greeted me with the following heart wrenching headline at the top of the opinion section “Deadly Persecution of a Gay Man.” I immediately felt ill, my stomach turned, I thought, “Dear God, not again.” It seems that stories about LGBT suicides are a regular occurrence anymore. The statistics on LGBT suicides are […]

I would like to know what is so liberating about leaving people sick, naked, and hungry. That is precisely what government entitlement programs address: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and taking care of the sick. If conservative Christians really are disciples of Christ, then I would like each one of them to ask, “What would Jesus do?”

The New York Times magazine recently published an Ethicist article about shopping at Hobby Lobby for those that are pro-choice. Or, I would argue, those that understand science and know that no method of abortion was ever on the table and that reproductive health care should be included in all health care packages. But, I […]

That probably sounds like a rather unremarkable claim. I’m a minister serving in the United Church of Christ who believes in the reality of God. Of course, I do. It’s my job really. I don’t think this post will generate the traffic that my fellow progressive blogger John Shuck has in his recent post which […]

The night of March 16th, 1945 the United States Firebombed Kobe, Japan killing 8,841 people. Another 650,000 were left homeless. These were not soldiers, they were civilians. The old, the young, women and children. I’m not writing this post to start a debate. I will not engage with any comments that say that “It was […]

In this episode, Michael Talerico, a social democrat, and Shaun Maher, a conservative, discuss the implications of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to congress and its potential impact on the negations between the Obama Administration and the Iranians over their nuclear program. Various questions are raised in this episode: Is Iran trustworthy? Is Obama trustworthy? Is Netanyahu […]

“Redeeming the Dead: A Mormon Murder Mystery” by Steven Kerry Brown Published by: Hard Row Publishing Inc., 306 pages long. ISBN: 9780989205429; Price: 14.95 It is hard to review a murder mystery novel. How do you say enough about the plot and characters to entice potential readers, to whet their appetite, without saying too much […]

There is a discussion happening between Ryan Bell and Jeremy Neil on whether it is necessary for God to be personal. Necessary for worship and necessary to be connected with the Christian tradition. And is it coherent given the concept or given the kind of world we live in? While Jeremy affirms God is personal […]

Whenever you see a breakdown of communication, this is likely the failure of both parties seeking to communicate with one another. If it is true that the religious and secular cannot speak unless one gives up their own language, then both sides have failed to do their task. To begin with I’ll use Henry Nelson […]

In this episode, Michael Talerico, a social democrat, and Shaun Maher, a conservative, discusses the Presidents veto of the Keystone pipeline. References Used for This Episode: What is the Keystone XL Pipeline? EPA Comments Challenge State Department Conclusions On Keystone’s Climate Impacts. The House Passes the Keystone XL Pipeline with bipartisan support. 29 Democrats […]

“Socialism and the redistribution of wealth is a fundamentally wrong-thinking, anti-freedom, anti-American idea. Nowhere in history has it worked. It destroys nations. Why do our leaders keep moving us in this direction? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness CANNOT happen when you limit, confiscate, and redistribute ownership and property through central government – societies […]

This post is a bit different. It’s an experiment and I hope you will indulge me. You see, whenever I’ve written a post, the interlocutor in my head has been an atheist, someone on the left who is skeptical that religion has anything to contribute to the question of human good. I have never attempted […]

Right now the Internet consists of you on your computer, and everyone else on their computers, each connected through a modem or radio that attaches to the worldwide network. A block of data coming from anywhere in the world has an equal chance of reaching you in a few milliseconds, no matter what it is. […]